Console makers making noises about relaxing multiplayer exclusivity

Cross-platform play between consoles, PCs, and mobile may be getting more common.

As far as multiplayer gaming on consoles is concerned, single-platform protectionism has been the de facto standard for years now. Series like Call of Duty sell millions of nearly identical copies across the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC, yet players can only take part in online matches against others playing on the same platform. Now, console makers are showing encouraging signs of lowering these artificial walls and letting developers create games that cross between platforms more easily.

The first chink in the armor came last week when Pure Chess developer Phil Gaskell told Eurogamer that Nintendo said it would have no problem with the game allowing cross-platform multiplayer between the Wii U and other consoles.

"On Pure Chess we asked whether we could do cross-platform multiplayer, expecting it to be the typical closed console platform I've been used to working with for 20 years," Gaskell told the site. "Within a couple of days they said, 'Yep, no problem. You can have other console players playing against Wii U players. You can have smartphone players play against them. No problem.'"

This wasn't completely new territory for Nintendo. Back in August, the developers of Cubemen 2revealed that the upcoming Wii U version of the game would allow for cross-platform play with users on the PC, Mac, Linux, and Android versions. Still, Gaskell's interview is the first sign that Nintendo would be OK with Wii U games communicating with other consoles, rather than just with computers and mobile phones. Of course, either Sony or Microsoft would also have to be amenable to this state of affairs to get the cross-console play working.

Microsoft is also making vague gestures toward the idea of supporting more cross-platform play, at least for PC players. In a recent interview with AusGamers, Microsoft Studios General Manager Phil Harrison was asked whether increased cloud capabilities and similar architectures might lead to more shared online play between games on Xbox One and PC. "I’m not allowed to leak things, but I think what you’re talking about makes a lot of sense," was the incredibly suggestive reply.

This isn't completely new territory for Microsoft, either. The company experimented with PC/Xbox 360 cross-play with the 2006 reboot of Shadowrun, which failed to make much of an impact on critics or consumers. More recently, Skulls of the Shogun released simultaneously on Xbox 360, Windows Phone, and Windows 8 with cross-platform multiplayer, but it was limited to delayed, asynchronous moves. Harrison's hints that more cross-platform play would make a lot of sense will come as encouraging words to PC gamers who would be happy to see Microsoft giving Windows gaming more significant support in the first place, especially in the wake of the shuttering of Games for Windows Live.

Sony, for its part, has allowed for cross-platform play between PS3s and PCs with games like Square's Final Fantasy XIV and Valve's Portal 2. That minor tradition will continue on the PS4, where games like Warframe and War Thunder will connect up with the servers for the existing PC versions. And, of course, there are plenty of games that let Vita players play against those on Sony home consoles, and vice versa.

This is all encouraging, especially for PC players, but it's still pretty far from the holy grail of game servers that don't differentiate between packets sent from any version of a game, on any console, computer or mobile platform. That's going to be a tough sell since locking other console makers out of cross-platform play makes a lot of business sense. Each console maker pays to maintain its own gameplay servers, after all, and closed online gameplay platforms can create powerful network effects, forcing consumers to buy your system if they want to play with their friends.

There are some technical and gameplay considerations involved in cross-platform play, too, though none of these are insurmountable if the will is there. Hopefully, these recent statements by Nintendo and Microsoft are hints that such a will is there—or might be soon—to tear down the barriers preventing platforms from playing together.

Promoted Comments

There are two possible outcomes. They link PC and Console as is today. If this happens, PC will trounce Console in shooters. This will generate a lot of complaints from the Console side. Understandably so. Its like letting Professional Sports players go against College level. Its not going to be pretty.

So the other possibility. They deliberately nerf the PC side or deliberately enhance the Console side (auto aim, restricted mouse movement, increased cone fire, increased recoil. And I utterly detest this. I am a PC player and I do not want to be treated like a second class citizen. I want full control over my game, not being deliberately nerfed so the Console players don't get too angry.

Now PS to X-Box. I can totally see that happening. And that is a good idea.

The main reasons it doesn't happen now are purely logistical, not policy. Cross platform play means for one, all systems must use the same multiplayer backend. That means rolling your own rather than going with the best one for the platform. It also means making sure patches are synced between all versions. That isn't exactly simple when dealing with the consoles. Finally, enabling it doesn't really get you anything as long as each platform has enough users already. Devs don't do it because there's pretty much zero demand or payoff and it would be a huge headache.

Interesting, that while Dust514 was mentioned, something else regarding it was not brought up.

When CCP was deciding what console to put it on, they ran into a snag. (This is why it's a PS3 only title.) Apparently, Microsoft would not allow them to have the server connectivity outside of the Xbox Live platform. Since Eve (and Dust514) both live on the same server (Tranquility, although it's a "server" in gam parlance only - more of a special purpose supercomputer) which resides in London. Microsoft did not allow that - they could not have the client on an XBox connect to a server outside of their system. So Dust514 is a PS3 only title, because Sony didn't have that problem. They said... sure.

If servers are being run by a third party, the console should have no problem connecting. If PC clients also connect to that server, it should be fine. But if the console manufacturer is running the server, or requires that they run the server, I don't see it happening. This is one of the reasons why World of Tanks on Xbox surprised me. Maybe they've loosened that restriction? Or are Xbox WoT players going to be on their own baby WoT server for Xbox only?

I've been playing Warframe (one of the crossplay games for PC/PS4 mentioned in the article) since the open beta started.

As others have stated too, im highly skeptical of true crossplay becoming reality any time soon.

Ignoring the glaring lack of polish and misc. problems with many f2p games like this one, which would not sit well on an audience who expects finished products and well rounded gameplay; there are other problems that can't seem to be solvable without gimping the PC version of those games into something that no one would want to play.

One of the problems is chat... text based chat is prevalent on multiplayer PC games (on warframe, you even NEEd to use text commands for certain coop stuff). Text chat is also needed for talking, not just with your squad, but with your clan. How will that translate for PS4 players expecting to play on their couch?

The fact that on Warframe and any other fps, you can macro functions for comfort or to turn semi-automatic weapons into full auto (in shooters), and that there is no reliable way to block this since macro programs can act completely transparently to the game (or even at driver-level). This with the added accuracy on kb/mouse setup, skews things dramatically towards PCland.

There is a huge gap between PC gaming and consoles that seems to make the whole "crossplay" idea, a very bad one.

123 posts | registered Sep 11, 2012

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

90 Reader Comments

It doesn't seem particularly surprising, Nintendo would be silly to make their console restrictive, Microsoft still has benefits from PC gaming and Sony has been trying to get into bed with Valve. But it's a huge leap to MW4 suddenly having a mutual agreement happening.

It'd be nice to play games with my buddies on different platforms. Walling me away from my friends on different systems actually discourages me from buying certain games. If I could have played Call of Duty with my friends on disparate platforms, then I might have purchased many more of the games. But I'm always forced to chose: Xbox, ps4 or PC. I ended up buying none. *this* is how you get my $60. Make it possible to play with my friends regardless of their particular platform loyalty.

I still mourn that Shadowrun didn't take off. Besides the fact that cross-platform play may well have become common already, it was also the best FPS I had ever played (let down by critics savaging the content-to-price ratio).

The biggest barrier to cross-platform play, in most games, is the keyboard and mouse versus controller debate (provided you're going to let PC players in on the party too). A good KB&M player will consistently outperform someone on a controller. Once a reliable method is found of segregating the two input methods (one that is resistant to being hacked!), that could also pave the way for the use of mice and keyboards on the traditional controller-only consoles.

That could be a serious boost to console sales, if lots of gamers who currently maintain PCs are tempted to switch when their favourite input method is available on consoles too.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought when Shadowrun was released, Microsoft was still requiring PC gamers to pay for "Live" access the same way you would on the Xbox so a PC gamer could not play with someone on Xbox unless they were also paying for Live. I can't imagine that did anything to bolster cross-platform multiplayer.

Sony has humored the idea of Playstation vs. PC before as they don't see the PC platform as a direct console competitor. (OTOH Sony does see smart phones as a competitor to the PSP.) Just before their really wasn't any other console that'd simultaneously facilitate multiplatform play simultaneously. Nintendo's recent change of heart could mean that we'll see PS4 vs. Wii U vs. PC vs. phone play.

I do not see Microsoft opening up XBL to cross platform play anytime soon. They're very protective of their private gaming network.

I'm just wondering what types of games would take advantage of cross platform play considering the wide range of hardware while keeping the game play balanced. PC will continue to reign supreme in terms of hardware and the only means of putting that to use with graphics that'll scale down to the Wii U is to increase the resolution on the PC side. That tends to cause some balancing issues for things like strategy games where players can see more of the map etc.

We've already seen cross-platform gaming pretty widespread with mobile games, and the younger generation who are growing up with mobile as their first gaming experiences are going to expect it when they upgrade to a 'real' console in the future.

I still mourn that Shadowrun didn't take off. Besides the fact that cross-platform play may well have become common already, it was also the best FPS I had ever played (let down by critics savaging the content-to-price ratio).

IIRC, I really wanted to play that game, but I was on XP and they demanded I install vista. That seemed like a bad idea at the time. That killed shadowrun more than anything else.

Seems like you could do some interesting things sort of like with the Wii U controller vs normal controllers, where the PC players COULD see more or different stuff, and they played the game in a different way or in a different mode. Seems like something that would have to be thought out pretty well in order to be as fun or interesting as it is in my head. You could also have the PC interaction be either more awkward or complex, but that doesn't sound like much fun.

Also, I would love for just about everything to run interoperably on just about everything. I'm talking games, text messaging and all chat clients . . .

Sony has humored the idea of Playstation vs. PC before as they don't see the PC platform as a direct console competitor. (OTOH Sony does see smart phones as a competitor to the PSP.) Just before their really wasn't any other console that'd simultaneously facilitate multiplatform play simultaneously. Nintendo's recent change of heart could mean that we'll see PS4 vs. Wii U vs. PC vs. phone play.

I do not see Microsoft opening up XBL to cross platform play anytime soon. They're very protective of their private gaming network.

I'm just wondering what types of games would take advantage of cross platform play considering the wide range of hardware while keeping the game play balanced. PC will continue to reign supreme in terms of hardware and the only means of putting that to use with graphics that'll scale down to the Wii U is to increase the resolution on the PC side. That tends to cause some balancing issues for things like strategy games where players can see more of the map etc.

There are two possible outcomes. They link PC and Console as is today. If this happens, PC will trounce Console in shooters. This will generate a lot of complaints from the Console side. Understandably so. Its like letting Professional Sports players go against College level. Its not going to be pretty.

So the other possibility. They deliberately nerf the PC side or deliberately enhance the Console side (auto aim, restricted mouse movement, increased cone fire, increased recoil. And I utterly detest this. I am a PC player and I do not want to be treated like a second class citizen. I want full control over my game, not being deliberately nerfed so the Console players don't get too angry.

Now PS to X-Box. I can totally see that happening. And that is a good idea.

I think one of the bigger issues is software versions across platforms. They'd have to sync up when patches went out for each platform, otherwise you'd have mis-matched software revs. And games like CoD (for example) love their timed exclusive deals to particular systems. Too much $$ to be made on those deals...

As I recall, one common reason cited for separating PC players from consoles (at least for shooters) was that the PC's generally have controllers that are so much better that being on a console was a massive handicap. Doesn't explain the lack of cross-platform interaction though.

This was tried before. A blog post in 2010 by the founder of Voodoo PC explains what happened, allegedly:

The console players got destroyed every time. So much so that it would be embarrassing to the XBOX team in general had Microsoft launched this initiative. Is this why the project was killed Who knows, but I'd love to hear from anyone involved --- what happened?

I would not be surprised for games such as Elder Scrolls Online, or numerous XBLA/PSN offerings that are multi-platform. However, PCs always have had, and always will have, a responsiveness advantage over consoles when it comes to FPS games. On the opposite side of that coin, I feel that consoles have an advantage over PCs for racing games (without a racing wheel), simply for the fact that a controller utilizes analog control input, whereas a keyboard is a digital input (analog being gradual whereas digital is on/off). Therefore, I doubt that FPS and racing games will become truly cross-platform (though PS4/Xbox One/Wii U cross-compatibility would be a welcome addition).

I think one of the bigger issues is software versions across platforms. They'd have to sync up when patches went out for each platform, otherwise you'd have mis-matched software revs. And games like CoD (for example) love their timed exclusive deals to particular systems. Too much $$ to be made on those deals...

While FF14 works via cross platform, It is painfully obvious that PS3 players have a significant handicap in their control scheme. All the PS3 players I have played with are pretty terrible at dodging things for example. Also in game communication is a problem.

As I recall, one common reason cited for separating PC players from consoles (at least for shooters) was that the PC's generally have controllers that are so much better that being on a console was a massive handicap. Doesn't explain the lack of cross-platform interaction though.

Until CCP managed to break it completely, M/KB worked perfectly in Dust514 on the PS3 to the point where the DS3 uses were complaining about it almost hourly on the forums.

There is absolutely nothing stopping console makers from collaborating with their game publishers and releasing FPS games bundled with mouse/keyboard combos, or at least some sort of hybrid device similar to the Nostromo range of gaming controllers.

There are two possible outcomes. They link PC and Console as is today. If this happens, PC will trounce Console in shooters. This will generate a lot of complaints from the Console side.

...

So the other possibility. They deliberately nerf the PC side or deliberately enhance the Console side (auto aim, restricted mouse movement, increased cone fire, increased recoil.

...

Now PS to X-Box. I can totally see that happening. And that is a good idea.

That's only part of the problem, what happens when one console is actually better that the other (slightly larger hit boxes, better response)? Note that the advantage doesn't even have to be real. How would Sony/Microsoft react if the consensus is XBOX/PS is the best platform for FPT/RTS title du jour? Game companies are going to have to be much more careful with their cross-console implementations if they want this to last.

This was tried before. A blog post in 2010 by the founder of Voodoo PC explains what happened, allegedly:

The console players got destroyed every time. So much so that it would be embarrassing to the XBOX team in general had Microsoft launched this initiative. Is this why the project was killed Who knows, but I'd love to hear from anyone involved --- what happened?

That article is absolute garbage. Whether the underlying story is true or not isn't even relevant when he's making claims about trickle downs and PC future.

The PC obviously has a future as it's three years later and there's a raft of amazing new games being released for the PC and a raft of recycled gameplay on consoles.

As far as the question "can console controllers compete with mouse & keyboard" the answer has been known for a long time. Do you know anyone who uses a console controller to play FPS games on PC? No, you do not. Not even you, Mr. Outlier.

The main reasons it doesn't happen now are purely logistical, not policy. Cross platform play means for one, all systems must use the same multiplayer backend. That means rolling your own rather than going with the best one for the platform. It also means making sure patches are synced between all versions. That isn't exactly simple when dealing with the consoles. Finally, enabling it doesn't really get you anything as long as each platform has enough users already. Devs don't do it because there's pretty much zero demand or payoff and it would be a huge headache.

For the record, when it comes to FPSes, I think the PCs will have to continue to be walled against the console owners or the console owners will stop playing out of frustration.

Actually, games should just have automated skill-based matchmaking (ala Starcraft 2, which does an incredibly good job of this). Any competitive multiplayer title should have this anyway (provides better challenge for dedicated players and is easier to get into for casuals), cross-platform multiplayer is just one more benefit.

As I recall, one common reason cited for separating PC players from consoles (at least for shooters) was that the PC's generally have controllers that are so much better that being on a console was a massive handicap. Doesn't explain the lack of cross-platform interaction though.

Until CCP managed to break it completely, M/KB worked perfectly in Dust514 on the PS3 to the point where the DS3 uses were complaining about it almost hourly on the forums.

There is absolutely nothing stopping console makers from collaborating with their game publishers and releasing FPS games bundled with mouse/keyboard combos, or at least some sort of hybrid device similar to the Nostromo range of gaming controllers.

I read an interview a long time ago, I think it was about Monday Night Combat, where the devs were talking about adjusting play in game depending on what controls you were using. In effect, you could play on a kb/m, but you would be handicapped in a way (not intrusive) to where you would be on the same playing field as game pad. I think the game pad people were also handicapped in ways as well.

I have been trying to search for the actual article for the past few minutes. I can't seem to find it though. Maybe it was about a different game.

In any case, it would be interesting to see what they could come up with in game to allow anyone to play with either kb/m or game pad, but not dominate the other side.

... How would Sony/Microsoft react if the consensus is XBOX/PS is the best platform for FPT/RTS title du jour? Game companies are going to have to be much more careful with their cross-console implementations if they want this to last.

Hate to break it to you but that is just never going to happen for an RTS or FPS. No idea what FPT is.

The relevant UI concept here is Fitt's Law. Unless consoles get a controller that can match a mouse + keyboard for accurate movement and complex modified clicking across a screen the PC will remain superior for games that give an edge to keyboard / mouse players.

Harrison's hints that more cross-platform play would make a lot of sense will come as encouraging words to PC gamers who would be happy to see Microsoft giving Windows gaming more significant support in the first place, especially in the wake of the shuttering of Games for Windows Live.

All this says to me is that Microsoft is planning a unified Xbox Live service for the Xbone and Win8 (and possibly Win Phone). I know that's what GfWL was sort of supposed to be, but it never really panned out. MS would see it as a selling point for the Xbone against the PS4, as well as a way to push adoption of Win8 and Win Phone to markets that have largely rejected them. Cross-platform multi-player would also give them the hook they feel they need to extend the Xbox Live Gold subscription fee to the PC side.

In short, it looks to me like just another corporate attempt to control and milk the customer, without giving them any real benefit. And as both a PC and console gamer, I don't see anything appealing about that.

Sound great in principle for console players but as a PC gamer I have zero interest in playing handicapped, or a dumbed down version, or a low graphics version of any game just so console players are happy

For the record, when it comes to FPSes, I think the PCs will have to continue to be walled against the console owners or the console owners will stop playing out of frustration.

Actually, games should just have automated skill-based matchmaking (ala Starcraft 2, which does an incredibly good job of this). Any competitive multiplayer title should have this anyway (provides better challenge for dedicated players and is easier to get into for casuals), cross-platform multiplayer is just one more benefit.

Which would effectively wall them off, with some leakage at the border.

I always figured it was because, in order for a PS3 player to play against an Xbox 360 player, XBL and PSN would have to speak to each other. Microsoft and Sony would have to work together to change how their systems work to make them compatible with each other.

The alternative would be for the game makers to develop their own systems for multiplayer games and matchmaking, as well as run their own servers. And if that started happening with high-profile games, people wouldn't have any reason to get an XBL Gold subscription any more (as someone else mentioned, FF11 worked independently of XBL and didn't need Gold to play). Microsoft wouldn't be too happy if they suddenly lost all their subscription income from Call of Duty players...

I always figured it was because, in order for a PS3 player to play against an Xbox 360 player, XBL and PSN would have to speak to each other. Microsoft and Sony would have to work together to change how their systems work to make them compatible with each other.

This is not true at all. Many communications libraries exist that could be taken advantage of. Also, if the core runtime protocol was at issue, a library would be created that would abstract that for developers.

Interesting, that while Dust514 was mentioned, something else regarding it was not brought up.

When CCP was deciding what console to put it on, they ran into a snag. (This is why it's a PS3 only title.) Apparently, Microsoft would not allow them to have the server connectivity outside of the Xbox Live platform. Since Eve (and Dust514) both live on the same server (Tranquility, although it's a "server" in gam parlance only - more of a special purpose supercomputer) which resides in London. Microsoft did not allow that - they could not have the client on an XBox connect to a server outside of their system. So Dust514 is a PS3 only title, because Sony didn't have that problem. They said... sure.

If servers are being run by a third party, the console should have no problem connecting. If PC clients also connect to that server, it should be fine. But if the console manufacturer is running the server, or requires that they run the server, I don't see it happening. This is one of the reasons why World of Tanks on Xbox surprised me. Maybe they've loosened that restriction? Or are Xbox WoT players going to be on their own baby WoT server for Xbox only?

I use my PC as a high-powered console, effectively. It's hooked up to my 55" LED TV and my primary interface with games is a controller. I like controllers. They're comfortable and convenient.

Mind you, I don't tend to play multi-player games any more... it's amazing how fast competitiveness goes out the window when you have a spouse, kids and a full-time job. Level of performance is all about time invested in a given activity and I just... ain't... got... that no more. It's no fun dipping a toe into multi only to have it instantly blown off by a 13 year old who then abuses you about being a noob.

There are a bunch of gamers out there like me who might be tempted back in by lower pressure gaming environments. More than segregation by control methods I think players should be segregated by time spent playing. Less subjective than 'skill'.

I use my PC as a high-powered console, effectively. It's hooked up to my 55" LED TV and my primary interface with games is a controller. I like controllers. They're comfortable and convenient.

Mind you, I don't tend to play multi-player games any more... it's amazing how fast competitiveness goes out the window when you have a spouse, kids and a full-time job. Level of performance is all about time invested in a given activity and I just... ain't... got... that no more. It's no fun dipping a toe into multi only to have it instantly blown off by a 13 year old who then abuses you about being a noob.

There are a bunch of gamers out there like me who might be tempted back in by lower pressure gaming environments. More than segregation by control methods I think players should be segregated by time spent playing. Less subjective than 'skill'.

I dunno. Skill is partially about that time investment - which is where the Blizzard ladder system for Starcraft 2 comes up as a decent example. I, also, lack time in which to play the game - but I don't get matched against people that are significantly better than I am after my initial placement. My "ranking" changes based on how I play, so the majority of the time I'm matched with someone at or near my skill level no matter if they play more or less than I am.

And it works pretty well. (Except that the race I play is totally underpowered, and David Kim needs to stop nerfing it and buff it so I can roll over people. )

For the record, when it comes to FPSes, I think the PCs will have to continue to be walled against the console owners or the console owners will stop playing out of frustration.

Actually, games should just have automated skill-based matchmaking (ala Starcraft 2, which does an incredibly good job of this). Any competitive multiplayer title should have this anyway (provides better challenge for dedicated players and is easier to get into for casuals), cross-platform multiplayer is just one more benefit.

Which would effectively wall them off, with some leakage at the border.

What it would do is allow friends from any platform to play together, whilst also allowing everybody to play with those that are around their own skill level. People who are (very) good with controllers will still be able to beat those that are (very) bad with the keyboard and mouse. People have very wide-ranging skill levels in games and you shouldn't forget that most console shooters have some auto-aim which helps them to close the gap a little.

Obviously the PC is far better (control accuracy wise, some people prefer controllers), but I suspect there would be pretty significant cross-over in a skill-rating-based matchmaking system and the big winner is the end user - more people to play with, regardless of skill level and you don't have to buy the same system as your friends to play multiplayer (this would be super-useful for me, I only know two people with PS3s, but both are two of my best friends and I don't buy games for PS3).

There are two possible outcomes. They link PC and Console as is today. If this happens, PC will trounce Console in shooters. This will generate a lot of complaints from the Console side. Understandably so. Its like letting Professional Sports players go against College level. Its not going to be pretty.

So the other possibility. They deliberately nerf the PC side or deliberately enhance the Console side (auto aim, restricted mouse movement, increased cone fire, increased recoil. And I utterly detest this. I am a PC player and I do not want to be treated like a second class citizen. I want full control over my game, not being deliberately nerfed so the Console players don't get too angry.hat Now PS to X-Box. I can totally see that happening. And that is a good idea.

You know, there are a lot of games that aren't shooters. I'd love a good cross platform Diablo like dungeon crawler -- PC, PS3, 360, PS4, XBoxOne, etc. Or how about a flight sim like Birds of Steel? Or basic board game adaptions? Or racing games? Sports games? Fighting games? Lots and lots of games don't have an inherent Mouse Keyboard advantage.

For the record, when it comes to FPSes, I think the PCs will have to continue to be walled against the console owners or the console owners will stop playing out of frustration.

Actually, games should just have automated skill-based matchmaking (ala Starcraft 2, which does an incredibly good job of this). Any competitive multiplayer title should have this anyway (provides better challenge for dedicated players and is easier to get into for casuals), cross-platform multiplayer is just one more benefit.

Which would effectively wall them off, with some leakage at the border.

What it would do is allow friends from any platform to play together, whilst also allowing everybody to play with those that are around their own skill level. People who are (very) good with controllers will still be able to beat those that are (very) bad with the keyboard and mouse. People have very wide-ranging skill levels in games and you shouldn't forget that most console shooters have some auto-aim which helps them to close the gap a little.

Obviously the PC is far better (control accuracy wise, some people prefer controllers), but I suspect there would be pretty significant cross-over in a skill-rating-based matchmaking system and the big winner is the end user - more people to play with, regardless of skill level and you don't have to buy the same system as your friends to play multiplayer (this would be super-useful for me, I only know two people with PS3s, but both are two of my best friends and I don't buy games for PS3).

I can't agree.

Oh it sounds great on paper. But allow me to reiterate here (only on FPSes).

I used to (until about 2 years ago) play Call of Duty on both the PC and the Console depending on which of my friends was on and available.

All but the absolute worst PC players would tear apart all but the best of console players. It's not about their skill level, it's about game play mechanics in twitch shooters.

In the XBox FPSes (and I've played other FPSes too, not just CoD though CoD was my preferred cup'o'tea) a player on a console can do some pretty crazy stuff and reliably "get away with it". Run across a field bunny hopping to avoid shots? Check. 360 quickscope headshots because of aim assist on consoles? Check. Light up someone before they can turn around? Check.

The moment you try that stuff on PC one of two things happens: Either you outplay the other players on aiming and can get away with it just because you're that awesome (and that's the creme of the crop on PC) or you're dead. That's the usual response - you're dead.

Because the moment you pop out somewhere to do your 360 jump shot, you're dead. The moment you sprint out of the door way, you're dead. You're dead because having the precision of aim with a mouse and keyboard available to other players allows those players to shut you down for whatever you're doing practically instantly. They can go from sighted in on a window, snap their aim across the screen to a doorway, fire once, kill you and back to the window without more than 1/5th of a second going by and still have a perfect bead on the window.

On the console, movement isn't directly mapped from a surface (the mouse pad) to the game. You have to press an analog stick that moves your aim relative to it's current viewpoint at a speed relative to the depression you've moved the stick. This results in wobbly, bobbing type of aiming. It's so much of a problem that console games have aim assist built in. Hell, sometimes the aim assist is even annoying, such as when you're trying to shoot someone and someone else runs in front of him, and the aim assist moves you off the first target to track the second ... only to have the first target shoot at you because he's the real threat.

There's just no comparison in this arena. Mouse + Keyboard on shitty player would put that player consistently at the top of the score board even against good players on a controller. And for the players using a controller, that's not fair to the price of their admission.

For all other genres I can think of, it's a non-issue. Because those genres don't depend on sub-second perfection in responses of players to stay alive. (And thus, win.)